WiiStation360 said: Because Bioshock at 40% of the PC resolution looks so much better that Bioshock at 35% of the PC's resolution.

this

the 360 have 512Mb ram while the Ps3 have 256Mb & we all know that Xenos Gpu better than Rsx  also from what i heard before the Cell is not proved for games. 

kabhold said: WiiStation360 said: Because Bioshock at 40% of the PC resolution looks so much better that Bioshock at 35% of the PC's resolution.     this

this^2

That's why i bought the PC version... Fallout 3 and The Last Remnant are next, i can't lose with my new hardware-HDTV combination...

Unfortunately I still play on Standard Definition, so I can't really give my 2 cents : (

I'm just looking forward to the time that people realise resolution != visual quality. GTA4 showed that though the PS3 had a lower resolution, it had arguably better shader effects, hence making it overall a better looking game. Now GTA4 isn't a brilliant example because the graphics were ok not great, but if the PS3 Bioshock uses better shaders or higher res textures (likely given extra space) then a lower screen resolution doesn't mean it will be graphically inferior. It might be, but it won't solely be the resolution that causes it.

And secondly, who gives a toss? 14% less resolution will make bugger all difference, which is apparent given that reviews for PS3 bioshock haven't made mention of the fact. If it was noticeable, they would have brought it up.

Pacman at 1920 by 1080 will still look crap, just really highly detailed crap. Resolution isn't everything.

Completely true.

Try playing a wii on 1080p TV.  Looks like shit.   On a sd crt looks good.

this is from 1UP its about the GPU 

summary:
The Xenox, built ground up by ATI, is capable of using today's graphic's engines to make some amazing looking screens with 10 mb of memory dedicated to 4x Anit-Aliasing (smoothing of jagged lines) at no cost to graphics horsepower. 332 Million transistors and 48 pipelines allow for lots of texturing, able to be flexible enough to do geometries (not currently the case) or pixels (much more used currently, especially by the Unreal engine, which is licensed for use the the vast majority of game developers) as needed. The GPU is linked very closely to the CPU, and is able to shift 512 mb of RAM towards either as needed.

The RSX is based on the G70 and is a card that was implimented late in the game when the cell could not handle graphics processing as was assumed it could (whether due to programming difficulty or simply too much drain on resources). The differences as noted above amount to a lessened memory bandwidth versus the 7800GTX PC cards. This will cause more reliance on the Cells Memory controller and memory banks (which causes a major problem in high detail at 1080p, which is why you are seeing the majority of PS3 games running 720 best frame rates ( True ).
300.4 million transistors and 36 piplines, 24 and 12 dedicated, versus 332 million (that is with the skimping due to unified pipelines, normally 48 pipelines would use a heck of alot more) and 48 pipelines, combined with 512 system memory and 10 mb dedicated 4x AA = roughly 522mb that could be used for graphics (more realistically about 386-412mb for pure graphics due to other needs), versus the 256 mb dedicated in the PS3 just allows for a more powerful GPU on the 360.

and this is the link: http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?publicUserId=5799836&bId=7967278

^^ Yes because 1up is the leading authority on accelerated graphics micro-architectures, who's word is treated as gospel by industry. Case in point, latest Nvidia GTX280, has 1.5 billion transistors, ATI HD 4870, a piddly 953million. Yet the GTX280 is no where near 1.5 times faster, in some benchmarks (not many) its no faster at all. And how prey tell are 360 games going to use 0MB of ram when in full flight, plus the operating system needs RAM even during a game. The fact that on the PS3 the processor doesn't have to compete with the graphics for memory bandwidth is a virtue, not a negative.

I'm not saying the PS3 graphics are necessarily better than the 360's, but to say the 360 is better with that analysis is just rubbish. If you actually want half decent graphics architecture analysis, at least go to beyond3d, although they don't focus much on console graphics.

All I know is this:

Anti-aliasing is less needed on higher resolutions (for example, 1440x900 with no AA at medium settings for many different games still look better than 1080x640 with 2x-4x AA on high settings.). Thus, they can focus on upgrading other things as well on the high resolutions, right?

i have both consoles and i saw the difference .... u have them both ?